Indeed, the kitchen sink approach seems “set-up to fail“. It lumps together the strongest evidence with the baseless nonsense as though it is all the same. And as we all know, if someone had a large lawsuit about a complex topic, and inserted within it were the equivalent of (to most Americans) “and aliens landed in the middle of the event and then flew away and no one noticed,” any judge would go out of his way to dump it just to keep from discrediting himself with ever even considering it.

Pentagon flyovers, plane swapping, etc are on the level of nutso for most Americans, and when even the movement itself rejects those claims, a judge would look like a total idiot to buy into them.

Set-up to fail.

This has nothing to do with heroic acts, wishes or intentions.

One of many important statements made by “jimd3100” on the same thread was this, “Gallop offers not a single fact to corroborate her allegation of a ‘meeting of the minds’ among the conspirators.”

A federal appeals court on Thursday sanctioned lawyers behind a lawsuit accusing former officials in the Bush administration of orchestrating theSept. 11 attacks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordered two California lawyers to pay $15,000 in addition to double what the government spent defending the case. For the next year, the lead lawyer behind the litigation must inform other federal courts in the circuit of the sanctions against him.

Three attorneys — Dennis Cunningham, William Veale and Mustapha Ndanusa — filed the lawsuit in 2008 on behalf of April Gallop, a member of the U.S. Army injured in the Pentagon attack on Sept. 11, 2001. The lawyers accused then-Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld of causing the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in order to create a political atmosphere that would allow the U.S. government to pursue domestic and international policy objectives. The suit alleged conspiracy to cause death and bodily harm and a violation of the Antiterrorism Act.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin dismissed the case in 2010, ruling that the complaint was frivolous and a product of “cynical delusion and fantasy.” A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision, imposing $15,000 in sanctions on the three lawyers for filing the suit.

As stated in the abstract, this paper shows that, of all the theories about what caused the damage and debris at the Pentagon on 9/11, a large plane impacting the Pentagon is in best accord with the majority eye witness testimony and main physical evidence, and is by far the most plausible theory. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory.

This work is supported by recent papers by Frank Legge and David Chandler:

In these papers, Legge and Chandler show the path required for the flyover theory is impossible as the wing loading is excessive and the bank angle would be far steeper than anything reported by the many observers.

Milo is the host of Touch, a daily program from 5:00-6:00 PM Pacific on The Bridge, 95.1 FM in Guerneville. Milo has invited me (Brian Romanoff) to be a regular guest on his show to try to bring more light into the events of 9/11. I appreciate the opportunity and I hope you enjoy the show.

Trends in Witness Data

Anyone who reads the collections of Pentagon witness accounts such as Eric Bart’s is likely to be impressed by the broad agreement among witnesses on aspects of the event — the low-angle approach of a large jetliner followed by a huge explosion and billowing smoke. Some proponents of theories excluding a jetliner have amplified inconsistencies and bizarre details in the accounts, while ignoring their agreement.

about 89

The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an
object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available
ones.

at least 45

The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it
with words like: ‘airliner’, ‘big’, ‘silver’, ‘roaring’, etc.

at least 23

The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American
Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.

at least 22

The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to
deafening.

at least 17

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light
poles when crossing the highways.

at least 12

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase
its throttle at the last seconds.

at least 11

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds
behind a jetliner.

at least 5

The amount of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had
its gear up.

at least 2

The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet,
without doing any creative interpretating [sic] of the witness
accounts.

at least 0

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person
thought he heard isn’t relevant!

at least 0

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at
the time of the crash.

at least 0

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of
the crash.

at least 3

The amount of witnesses who reported the sound of the plane was quite
noiseless. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock)

at least 1

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had it’s gear
down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)

at least 25

The amount of witnesses who have said something that might point to the use
of explosives or incendiaries. (White flash, powerful blast waves which blew
people through the air, molten glass, burning aluminium, [sic] spreading debris
over hundreds of yards back to where the plane came from, including 2 engines,
the missing plane itself, etc.)

It will never be a better time than now to discuss 9/11 with accuracy and facts based on the best evidence.

The legal and political implications of 9/11 have turned scientific research in this area into a high stakes competition for the minds of the public. Pertinent information has been kept secret, the corporate media has systematically kept “damaging” information (such as video images of the World Trade Center Building 7) out of public view, 9/11 research has been marginalized, and the official investigations have failed to answer, or in many cases even address, the most troubling questions. One development that appears to be a tactic in the ongoing cover-up is the high profile promotion of transparently false theories, “straw men,” the only purpose of which appears to be to allow the 9/11 Truth Movement to be ridiculed.

With the tenth anniversary of 9/11 upon us, the battle for public perceptions has intensified and there is a heightened campaign to undermine the scientific basis of the truth movement.

Dr Judy Wood has published a book asserting that the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were felled by “dustification” of the steel, which she claims is achieved by the use of “directed free energy”.[1] It is, however, obvious that the steel was severed and fell in normal lengths, otherwise intact, as seen in conventional demolitions. The similarly foolish idea that the WTC towers were demolished by nuclear explosives, long ago refuted,[2] has also been recently revived, with a new claimant appearing, Jeff Prager,[3] but this appears to be having little influence so far. No explanation involving “directed free energy” or nuclear devices could account for the way separate explosions appeared in the Twin Towers, layer by layer, descending at a precise rate, as the towers came down.[4]

The cost of the non-competitive contracts the U.S. military has tripled in the last 10 years, now tallying up to $140 billion of taxpayer money per year on quick solution defense spending.

Though competition amongst companies saves taxpayer money, the stated urgent nature of the military’s needs pushed aside fiscal concerns. In 2001, the Pentagon’s non-competitive contracts cost around $50 billion. In 2010, nearly a decade after the war on terror began, that spending has risen to around $140 billion. Only 55 percent of contracts awarded in the first two quarters of 2011 were competitive.

A mysterious helicopter was seen flying near the Pentagon in the minutes before the attack there on September 11, 2001. Several witnesses have described seeing the helicopter, which circled the Pentagon and then apparently landed for a brief period on the helipad, near where the building was subsequently hit. It then flew off very shortly before the attack took place. And yet there has never been any public acknowledgement of this incident, or any official explanation of what the helicopter was doing at the Pentagon at that time.

While interviewing one of the witnesses to the incident, however, a Navy historian revealed that the helicopter belonged to the United States Park Police, and, the historian said, had been instructed to intercept the aircraft that was on a crash-course for the Pentagon.

Official accounts have claimed that Park Police helicopters only took to the air after the Pentagon was hit, to provide assistance in response to the attack. However, evidence casts doubt on this version of events. A woman who was dating one of the Park Police helicopter pilots has written an account of her experiences on September 11, which clearly supports the contention that the helicopters took off before the Pentagon attack occurred. And there are several contradictions between the various accounts describing the official narrative, indicating this narrative may, at least partly, have been fabricated. Furthermore, it appears there could have been a deliberate attempt to cover up the true details of what happened. The Navy historian in fact told the eyewitness he interviewed: “Don’t tell anyone about that story. … We don’t want the press to get this.”

WITNESSES SAW HELICOPTER BY THE PENTAGON
Several individuals have recalled seeing a helicopter flying near the Pentagon just before the attack there on September 11. Shortly after the attack occurred, a senior Air Force officer at the Pentagon told CNN’s Chris Plante that he had seen “a helicopter circle the building,” which had “disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is … and he then saw [a] fireball go into the sky” when the Pentagon was hit. [1] Jennifer Reichert had been stuck in traffic on the road in front of the Pentagon. She described that “a helicopter [took] off from the heliport at the Pentagon.” Then, “Minutes–maybe seconds–later,” she heard the aircraft coming toward the Pentagon and then felt the explosion of the crash. [2]